Appl Water Sci (2013) 3:247–261
DOI 10.1007/s13201-013-0077-2
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Water quality index to determine the surface water quality
of Sankey tank and Mallathahalli lake, Bangalore urban district,
Karnataka, India
P. Ravikumar • Mohammad Aneesul Mehmood •
R. K. Somashekar
Received: 7 October 2012 / Accepted: 2 January 2013 / Published online: 24 January 2013
Ó The Author(s) 2013. This article is published with open access at Springerlink.com
Abstract The present work aims at assessing the water
quality index (WQI) in the surface water of Sankey tank
and Mallathahalli lake situated in Bangalore Urban district
by monitoring three sampling locations within Sankey tank
(viz., A, B and C) and Mallathahalli lake (viz., Inlet, Centre
and outlet) for a period of 3 months from March to May
2012. The surface water samples were subjected to com-
prehensive physico-chemical analysis involving major
cations (Ca2?, Mg2?, Na?, K?, Fe2?), anions (HCO3-,
Cl-, SO42-, NO3-, F-, PO43-) besides general parameters
(pH, EC, TDS, alkalinity, total hardness, DO, BOD, COD,
CO2, SiO2, colour, turbidity). For calculating the WQI, 14
parameters namely, pH, electrical conductivity, total dis-
solved solids, total hardness, alkalinity, calcium, magne-
sium, sodium, potassium, chloride, sulphate, nitrate,
fluorides and iron were considered. SAR values indicated
that both Sankey tank and Mallathahalli lake waters are
excellent (S1) for irrigation, while electrical conductivity
values classified these lake water, respectively under
medium salinity (C2) and high (C3) salinity category.
Correlation between SAR and electrical conductivity
revealed that Sankey tank water is C2S1 (medium salinity-
low sodium) type while Mallathahalli lake water is C3S1
(high salinity-low sodium) type. Sankey tank and Malla-
thahalli lake water were, respectively hard and very hard in
nature. Further, it is apparent from WQI values that Sankey
tank water belongs to good water class with WQI values
ranging from 50.34 to 63.38. The Mallathahalli lake water
with WQI value ranging from 111.69 to 137.09, fall under
poor water category.
P. Ravikumar (&)  M. Aneesul Mehmood  R. K. Somashekar
Department of Environmental Science, Bangalore University,
Bangalore 560056, India
e-mail: prakruthiravi@gmail.com; nisargaravi@gmail.com
Keywords Sankey tank  Mallathahalli lake 
Water quality index  SAR  Percent sodium
Introduction
Lakes and tanks are known to be ecological barometers of
the health of a city as they regulate the micro-climate of
any urban center (Benjamin et al. 1996), thereby influ-
encing the life of the people adjacent to it. The quality of
surface water in an inland water bodies have a profound
effect on the ground water table and ground water quality
of the nearby aquifers due to existence of direct interaction
between surface and ground water. Lakes have a great
significance environmentally due to reasons such as
(a) sources of water: surface and groundwater recharge and
discharge, for drinking and irrigation, (b) supports liveli-
hoods, lung space of clear and cool air, (c) food and
nutrition, (d) act as flood control and stream flow mainte-
nance, (e) recreation—education, boating, swimming,
walking and jogging on the lake bund, (f) lakes are natural
infrastructure for climate change adaptation and biogeo-
logical cycles, (g) pisciculture, (h) wildlife habitat, espe-
cially fishes and birds, (i) rain water harvesting and,
(j) emergency water supply for firefighting.
The environmental conditions of any lake system
depend upon the nature of that lake and its exposure to
various environmental factors. Hence, surface water qual-
ity depends not only on natural processes (precipitation
inputs, erosion, and weathering of crustal material, etc.) but
also on anthropogenic influences (urban, industrial, and
agricultural activities) (Papatheodorou et al. 2006). Their
fragile ecosystem must maintain the state of environmental
equilibrium with the existing surroundings particularly
from a special prospective of human encroachment and
123
248
pollution. However, in recent decades, population growth,
agricultural practices and sewage runoff from urban areas
have increased nutrient inputs many folds to the level of
their natural occurrence, resulting in accelerated eutrophi-
cation (Choudhary et al. 2010; Zan et al. 2010). The lakes
and reservoirs, all over India without exception, are in
varying degrees of environmental degradation, might be
due to encroachments, eutrophication (from domestic and
industrial effluents) and silt. There has been a quantum
jump in population during the last century without corre-
sponding expansion of civic facilities resulting in lakes and
reservoirs, especially the urban ones, becoming sinks for
contaminants. Most urban and rural lakes have vanished
under this pressure with worldwide environmental con-
cerns (Iscen et al. 2008; Prasanna et al. 2010). However, in
those lakes that could endure, drinking water supply is
either substantially reduced or is non-potable, flood
absorption capacity impaired, biodiversity threatened and
there is diminished fish production (Zhang et al. 2009). The
main reasons which resulted in impaired conditions of the
lakes could be categorized into two classes namely,
(a) pollutants entering from fixed point sources (viz.,
nutrients from wastewater, from municipal and domestic
effluents; organic, inorganic and toxic pollutants from
industrial effluents and storm water runoff) (b) pollutants
entering from non-point sources (viz., nutrients through
fertilizers, toxic pesticides and other chemicals, mainly
from agriculture runoff; organic pollution from human
settlements spread over areas along the periphery of the
lakes and reservoirs).
Developmental pressures and increasing human popu-
lation has made the lakes of the study area vulnerable to
sewage flow, solid waste dumping, etc., in turn exerting
pressure on the percolation and infiltration processes
responsible for the groundwater recharge (Ravikumar et al.
2011). The municipal effluents from such natural drains
leading to tanks and lakes deteriorated the quality of these
water bodies. Sedimentation of the pollutants has not only
reduced the surface area of the water which in turn has
increased evaporation rate, but also reduced ground water
levels on account of poor permeability with more and more
silt, clay deposits, trash and toxic waste accumulation in
them year after year. In spite of the fact that nutrient
enrichment stimulates the growth of plants (algae as well as
higher plants), nutrient enrichment in lakes is considered as
one of the major environmental problems in many coun-
tries (Oczkowski and Nixon 2008), ultimately leading to
deterioration of water quality and degradation of entire
ecosystems (Yu et al. 2010). Hence, periodic monitoring
and assessment of water quality helps to develop man-
agement strategies to control surface water pollution
(Shuchun et al. 2010) in spite of increasing urbanization
and anthropogenic pressure on them. Water quality index
123
Appl Water Sci (2013) 3:247–261
(WQI) is one of the most effective tools (Mishra and Patel
2001; Naik and Purohit 2001; Singh 1992; Tiwari and
Mishra 1985) to communicate information on the quality of
water to the concerned citizens and policy makers as it is
an important parameter for the assessment and manage-
ment of surface/ground waters. Hence, the present work
has been carried out with a focus to evaluate comparatively
the prevailing water quality and potability of two lakes,
Mallathahalli lake (viz., sewage fed lake) and Sankey tank
(viz., rainfed lake) by analyzing physico-chemical param-
eters and by estimating WQI.
Study area
Bangalore district is situated in the heart of the South-
Deccan plateau in peninsular India to the South-Eastern
corner of Karnataka State between the latitudinal parallels
of 12°390 N and 13°180 N and longitudinal meridians of
77°220 E and 77°520 E at an average elevation of about
920 m (3,020 ft) covering an areal extent of land of about
2,174 km2 (Bangalore rural and urban districts). Bangalore
district (Bangalore rural and urban districts) borders with
Kolar and Chikkaballapur in the northeast, Tumkur in the
northwest, Mandya and Ramanagaram in the southeast and
Mysore and Tamil Nadu in the south. Bangalore urban
district is bounded in all the directions by Bangalore rural
district except in southeast, where the district is bounded
by Dharmapuri district of Tamil Nadu state. Bangalore
urban district divided into three taluks namely Bangalore
North, Bangalore South and Anekal (Fig. 1). Major part of
the district (viz., Bangalore north and South taluks) is
drained by Shimsha and Kanva rivers of Cauvery basin
(Catchment area of 468 km2, which includes Nelamangala
and Magadi taluks of Bangalore rural also). Anekal taluk is
drained by South Pennar river of Ponnaiyar basin, which
takes its birth from Nandi hills and flows toward south
(Catchment area is 2,005 km2 which covers Devanahalli
and Hoskote taluks of Bangalore rural district also). Ban-
galore is considered to be climatically a well favoured
district. The climate of the district is classed as the sea-
sonally dry tropical Savanna climate with four seasons. The
main features of the climate of Bangalore are agreeable and
favourable range of temperatures. The dry season with
clear bright summer weather (December to February), is
characterized by high temperatures (March to May), fol-
lowed by the South-West monsoon season (June to Sep-
tember) and post-monsoon/retreating monsoon season
(October to November). Two rainy seasons come one after
the other but with opposite wind regimes, corresponding to
the south-west and north-east monsoons. Typical mon-
soonal climate prevails in the district with major contri-
bution of rainfall from southwest monsoon. Contribution
Appl Water Sci (2013) 3:247–261
Fig. 1 Location map of Sankey tank and Mallathahalli Lake
from south-west monsoon and north-east monsoon
respectively account for 54.18 and 26.53 % of the total
rainfall in addition to the significant contribution of
18.53 % from pre-monsoon showers. In general, pre-humid
to semi-arid climatic conditions prevail in the district. The
mean annual rainfall is 859.6 mm, with three different
rainy periods covering 8 months of the year. June to Sep-
tember being rainy season receives 54 % of the total annual
rainfall in the S–W monsoon period and 241 mm during
the N-E monsoon period (October–November). Bangalore
records high temperatures during April with daily mean
temperatures of 33.4 °C and mean daily minimum in the
month of December at 25.7 °C, as the coolest month. The
mean monthly relative humidity is the lowest during the
month of March at 44 % and records highest between the
months of June and October at 80–85 %. The surface
winds in Bangalore have seasonal characteristics with the
easterly components predominating during one period
followed by the westerly in the other. The high wind speed
averages 17 km/h during the westerly winds in the month
of July and a minimum of 8–9 km/h during the months of
April and October.
Two surface water bodies namely Mallathahalli lake
(viz., sewage fed lake) and Sankey tank (viz., rainfed lake)
were opted for the present study (Fig. 1).
249
A. Sankey tank, a man-made freshwater lake or tank,
situated in the western part of Bangalore in the
middle of the suburbs of Malleshwaram, Vyalikaval
and Sadashiva Nagar, lying in an highly urbanized
area. The lake covers a surface area of about 15 ha
(37.1 acres) and catchment area of 1.254 km (0.8
mile) with one island within its premise. It is a part
of Vrishabhavathi valley in the Bangalore urban
district with rainfall being primary inflow into it and
has got one outlet on the southern corner. At its
widest, the tank has a width of 800 m (2,624.7 ft)
and a maximum depth of 9.26 m (30.4 ft). The
highest point was 929.8 m above mean sea level.
The tank was also known as Gandhadhakotikere, as
the Government Sandalwood Depot is located near
the lake. This tank was recently brought under
restoration programme of BBMP (Bruhat Bangalore
Mahanagara Palike) by Bangalore Water Supply and
Sewerage Board (BWSSB) with other major imple-
mentations such as removing encroachments, alum
purification treatment to absorb toxic elements and
germs, nursery towards the north, paved walkways,
landscaped parks, special tank for idol immersion
during Ganesh Chaturthi festival and restoration of
swimming pool. The threats posed to the survival of
123
250
the lake includes (a) contamination of water with
sewage flowing in from seven points, which are
connected to storm water drains, (b) choked drains
with garbage and sewage, (c) leaking sewage pipes
connected to a public toilet at a park, (d) decrease in
the biological oxygen demand (viz., high BOD
content) due to sewage inflow, (e) threats to fish
and plants and reduction in number of ducks, fish
and migratory birds due to polluted condition of the
lake waters (viz., DO was reported to vary from 3.7
to 8.1, BOD between 2 and 8 and the pH varied from
7.1 to 7.5).
(B) Mallathahalli lake is freshwater, natural lake located
on the western fringe of Bangalore city in less
urbanized area. Mallathahalli lake fall in Vrishabh-
avathi valley and Byramangala lake series in the
Bangalore urban district and the main primary
source of water to the lake are rainfall and sewage.
The inlets are at the north and north-east corners of
the lake while one outlet is also there on the north-
western corner of lake. The lake is irregular in
shape and covers approximately 25.9 ha surface
area and perimeter being approximately 2,900 m,
while digitized lake boundary through RS and GIS
gave an area of 27.53 ha. It was observed that the
lake area has reduced from 27.53 ha to 25.95 ha.
The catchment area of the lake is about 625 ha with
3 islands within its premises. The highest point was
900 m above sea level and lowest point was 840 m
above mean sea level. Mallathahalli lake is affected
by several sources of pollution including washing of
clothes, animals, vehicles and even bathing, espe-
cially on the northern and eastern banks of the lake.
These activities lead to pollution of the lake by
soaps, detergents and organic matter, and are taking
place almost all around the lake. The lake area is
also misused as public toilets leading to unhygienic
environment and increasing the organic load in the
lake. To the south of the lake, its banks are used as
crematorium. Dumping of garbage and other wastes
around the lake is taking place, which not only
pollutes the lake but also spoils its beauty. To the
west of the lake, there is an Areca plantation
surrounded by several housing encroachments. The
sewage line enters the lake from north-east and
eastern banks of the lake. Cattle grazing can be seen
to the west and north of the lake. The volume of the
lake is decreasing due to the accumulation of silt
coming from the run off. There are a number of
upcoming layouts around the lake, which may affect
the water both quantitatively and qualitatively.
123
Appl Water Sci (2013) 3:247–261
Methodology
Sampling of surface water
The surface water samples collected at three different sites
within the Sankey tank are earmarked as A, B, and C, while the
three sample collection centers from Mallathahalli lake were
assigned the names inlet, centre and outlet. The collected
surface water samples were collected from these six locations
in a 2 L pre-cleaned polyethylene bottles for a period of
3 months from March 2012 to May 2012. Three months’
continuous monitoring involved comprehensive physico-
chemical analyses encompassing estimation of major cations
(Ca2?, Mg2?, Na?, K?, Fe2?), anions (HCO3-, Cl-, SO42-,
NO3-, F-, PO43-) besides general parameters (pH, EC, TDS,
alkalinity, total hardness, DO, BOD, COD, CO2, SiO2, colour,
turbidity, temperature). In situ parameters like pH, EC, TDS,
dissolved oxygen, etc. were measured immediately in the field
immediately after sampling. The standard analytical proce-
dures as recommended by the American Public Health
Association (2005) were employed in the present study
(Table 1). Sample from each station within the lake were
analyzed thrice for each parameters (i.e., triplicate results) to
obtain concordant values. Based on the results of physico-
chemical analyses, irrigation quality parameters like sodium
absorption ratio (SAR), percent sodium (% Na), residual
sodium carbonate (RSC) were also calculated. The suitability
of the surface water from these two lakes for drinking,
domestic, and irrigation purposes was evaluated by comparing
the values of different water quality parameters with those of
the Bureau of Indian standards (BIS 1998) guideline values for
drinking water.
Water quality index
The WQI provides a comprehensive picture of the quality
of surface/ground water for most domestic uses. WQI is
defined as a rating that reflects the composite influence of
different water quality parameters (Sahu and Sikdar 2008).
WQI is calculated from the point of view of the suitability
of surface and/or groundwater for human consumption.
Hence, for calculating the WQI in the present study, 14
parameters namely, pH, electrical conductivity, total dis-
solved solids, total hardness, alkalinity, calcium, magne-
sium, sodium, potassium, chloride, sulphate, nitrate,
fluorides and iron have been considered (Table 2).
There were three steps for computing WQI of a water
sample.
a. Each of the chemical parameters was assigned a weight
(wi) based on their perceived effects on primary health/
their relative importance in the overall quality of water
Appl Water Sci (2013) 3:247–261 251

Table 1 Analytical methods

Sl. No Category Characteristics Analytical method Unit BIS limits (1998)
adopted along with the BIS
of
desirable and permissible limits Desirable Permissible
parameters

1 General pH Electrode – 6.5–8.5 6.5–8.5

2 Electrical Conductivity-TDS meter lS/cm 2,000 3,000
conductivity
(EC)
3 Total dissolved Conductivity-TDS meter mg/L 1,000 2,000
solids (TDS)
4 Total Alkalinity Titrimetric mg/L 200 600
(as CaCO3-)
5 Temperature Electrode °C NA NA
6 Total hardness EDTA titrimetric mg/L 300 600
(as CaCO3)
7 Calcium EDTA titrimetric mg/L 75 200
hardness
(as CaCO3)
8 Colour Colorimetric Hazens 10 25
9 Turbidity Colorimetric NTU 5 10
10 Dissolved Modified Winker’s method mg/L 6.0 NA
oxygen (DO)
11 Biochemical Modified Winker’s method mg/L 3.0 6.0
oxygen
demand (BOD)
12 Chemical oxygen Closed reflux method mg/L NA NA
demand (COD)
13 Major Calcium EDTA titrimetric mg/L 75 200
cations (as Ca2?)
14 Magnesium EDTA titrimetric mg/L 30 100
(as Mg2?)
15 Sodium (as Na?) Flame photometric mg/L 100 200
16 Potassium Flame photometric mg/L 10 10
(as K2?)
17 Ferrous iron 1,10 Phenanthroline method mg/L 0.3 1.0
(as Fe2?) using HACH colorimeter
(DR/890)
18 Major Bicarbonates Titrimetric mg/L NA NA
anions (as HCO3-)
19 Carbonates Titrimetric mg/L NA NA
(as CO32-)
20 Chlorides Argentometric titration mg/L 250 1,000
21 Nitrates Ion selective electrode (ISE) mg/L 45 45
(as NO3-)
22 Fluoride (as F-) Ion selective electrode (ISE) mg/L 1.0 1.5
23 Phosphates Stannous chloride mg/L 0.3 0.3
(as PO43-)
24 Sulphates Barium chloride mg/L 200 400
(as SO42-)

for drinking purposes (Table 2). The highest weight of
5 was assigned to parameters which have the major
effects on water quality and their importance in quality
(viz., NO3-, F- and TDS) and a minimum of 2 was
assigned to parameters which are considered as not
harmful (Ca2?, Mg2?, K?).
b. Computing the relative weight (Wi) of each parameter
using Eq. 1. Table 2 present the weight (wi) and calcu-
lated relative weight (Wi) values for each parameter.
c. A quality rating scale (qi) for each parameter is
computed by dividing its concentration in each water
sample by its respective standard according to the

123
252 Appl Water Sci (2013) 3:247–261

Table 2 The weight and relative weight of each of the physico- and Mallathahalli lake (assigned as inlet, centre, and outlet)
chemical parameters used for WQI determination and each sample was analyzed thrice for the period March,
Parameters BIS Weight Relative April and May 2012. The minimum, maximum and mean
desirable (wi) weight (Wi) analytical results for each parameter for each period of
limit (1998) analysis (i.e., March, April and May 2012) for both Sankey
pH 8.5 3 0.0698 tank and Mallathahalli lake are summarized in Tables 3
EC 2,000 3 0.0698 and 4, respectively.
Total dissolved solids 1,000 5 0.1163 pH is a numerical expression that indicates the degree to
(TDS) which water is acidic or alkaline, with the lower pH value
Total alkalinity (TA) 200 2 0.0465 tends to make water corrosive and higher pH provides taste
Total hardness (TH) 300 3 0.0698 complaint and negative impact on skin and eyes (Rao and
Calcium 75 2 0.0465 Rao 2010). The mean pH of Sankey tank water was
Magnesium 30 2 0.0465 8.76 ± 0.73 (March 2012), 8.54 ± 0.40 (April 2012) and
Sodium 100 3 0.0698 8.30 ± 0.18 (May 2012) while the mean pH of Malla-
Potassium 10 2 0.0465 thahalli lake water was 8.65 ± 0.34 (March 2012),
Chloride 250 3 0.0698 8.78 ± 0.73 (April 2012) and 8.94 ± 0.53 (May 2012).
Sulphate 200 3 0.0698 Garg et al. (2010) opines that pH range between 6.0 and 8.5
Nitrate 45 5 0.1163 indicates the productive nature of any water body. But, pH
Fluoride 1 5 0.1163
of both the lakes in the present study crossed the permis-
Iron 0.3 2 0.0465
sible limit of 6.5–8.5 (BIS 1998).
P P Electrical conductivity of water is a direct function of its
- wi = 43 Wi = 1.000
total dissolved salts (Harilal et al. 2004) and is used as an
index to represent the total concentration of soluble salts in
guidelines laid down by BIS (1998) and then, the result water (Purandara et al. 2003; Gupta et al. 2008). Excess EC
was multiplied by 100 using Eq. 2. Finally, for com- lead to scaling in boilers, corrosion and quality degradation
puting the WQI, the water quality sub-index (SIi) for of the product. The mean conductivity values was
each chemical parameter is first determined, which is 462.56 ± 68.82 lS/cm (March 2012), 482.22 ± 79.06
then used to determine the WQI as per the Eqs. 3 and 4. lS/cm (April 2012) and 384.67 ± 41.80 lS/cm (May
wi 2012) in Sankey tank water and 1,762.56 ± 79.20 lS/cm
Wi ¼ Pn ð1Þ
n¼1 wi (March 2012), 1,777.89 ± 32.62 lS/cm (April 2012) and
where Wi is the relative weight, wi is the weight of each 1853.33 ± 66.56 lS/cm (May 2012) in Mallathahalli lake
parameter and n is the number of parameters. water. Conductivity value of Sankey tank and Mallathahalli
  lake water were well within the permissible limit of
Ci 3,000 lS/cm. Relatively higher EC values were recorded
qi ¼ 100 ð2Þ
Si in the Mallathahalli Lake water, attributed to the high
where qi = quality rating, Ci = concentration of each chem- degree of anthropogenic activities such as waste disposal,
ical parameter in each water sample in mg/L, Si = Indian sewage inflow and agricultural runoff (Pandit 2002).
drinking water standard (BIS 1998) for each chemical Classification of water based on Electrical conductivity
parameter in mg/L except for conductivity (lS/cm) and pH. illustrates that the Sankey tank water belongs to medium
salinity class (C2) and Mallathahalli lake water to high
SI ¼ Wi qi ð3Þ (C3) salinity category (Table 5).
X
n Total dissolved solids (TDS) mainly consists of inor-
WQI ¼ SIi ð4Þ ganic salts such as carbonates, bicarbonates, chlorides,
i¼1
sulphates, phosphates and nitrates of calcium, magnesium,
where SIi is the sub-index of ith parameter; qi is the rating sodium, potassium, iron etc. and small amount of organic
based on concentration of ith parameter and n is the matter. The average concentration of total dissolved solids
number of parameters. in Sankey tank water was 286.78 ± 42.67 mg/L (March
2012), 298.98 ± 49.02 mg/L (April 2012) and 238.49 ±
25.91 mg/L (May 2012) while in Mallathahalli lake water,
Results and discussion it was 1092.78 ± 49.10 mg/L (March 2012), 1102.29 ±
20.23 mg/L (April 2012) and 1149.07 ± 41.27 mg/L (May
The samples were collected from each of the three different 2012). TDS values of Sankey tank and Mallathahalli lake
sites within the Sankey tank (earmarked as A, B, and C) water were below the BIS permissible limit of 2,000 mg/L.

123
Appl Water Sci (2013) 3:247–261 253

Table 3 Analytical results of Sankey tank water from March 2012 to May 2012
Parameters March 2012 April 2012 May 2012
Mean SD Min Max Mean SD Min Max Mean SD Min Max

DO 7.83 1.11 6.30 9.01 7.70 1.16 5.80 9.01 6.28 0.42 5.60 6.90
pH 8.76 0.73 7.52 9.63 8.54 0.40 8.00 9.30 8.30 0.18 8.00 8.60
EC 462.56 68.82 391.00 554.00 482.22 79.06 439.00 692.00 384.67 41.80 329.00 430.00
TDS 286.78 42.67 242.42 343.48 298.98 49.02 272.18 429.04 238.49 25.91 203.98 266.60
Colour 8.89 2.20 5.00 10.00 10.00 0.00 10.00 10.00 10.00 0.00 10.00 10.00
Turbidity 0.90 0.30 0.10 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00
BOD 8.05 1.18 6.77 10.20 5.78 0.58 5.01 6.51 5.87 0.57 5.30 6.90
COD 71.44 12.32 50.20 85.20 37.94 1.41 35.80 39.50 21.91 3.19 16.40 26.40
Temp 28.19 0.40 27.70 29.10 30.04 0.50 29.10 31.00 30.13 0.39 29.70 31.00
CO2 7.29 0.64 6.20 8.00 7.50 0.60 6.50 8.50 5.99 0.34 5.40 6.50
TA 158.98 20.64 131.50 196.10 359.78 40.65 328.00 452.00 318.00 18.85 285.00 336.00
TH 148.90 14.18 128.20 168.20 138.93 5.59 130.20 147.30 122.14 5.09 114.20 130.30
CaH 92.32 1.37 91.00 95.20 57.62 6.05 47.21 63.20 38.33 5.73 32.00 46.50
2?
Ca 36.93 0.55 36.40 38.08 23.05 2.42 18.88 25.28 15.33 2.29 12.80 18.60
MgH 56.58 14.33 37.00 76.20 81.31 9.16 71.00 95.29 83.81 3.92 78.40 89.80
Mg2? 13.80 3.50 9.03 18.59 19.84 2.24 17.32 23.25 20.45 0.96 19.13 21.91
Cl- 55.86 12.53 42.91 71.97 141.66 9.44 127.90 154.30 112.39 6.12 100.20 119.00
NO3- 5.04 0.43 4.31 5.68 18.20 3.44 14.20 23.50 20.23 4.46 14.00 26.20
PO43- 8.86 0.46 8.20 9.50 9.59 0.97 8.60 11.50 9.48 1.51 6.50 11.20
2-
SO4 28.83 3.70 21.21 33.33 29.69 2.84 25.80 33.50 25.03 1.95 20.40 26.30
F? 0.32 0.07 0.20 0.40 0.42 0.22 0.10 0.80 0.47 0.21 0.10 0.80
K? 31.59 1.73 17.52 42.50 36.01 0.31 30.90 40.90 29.58 1.95 22.80 31.20
Na? 45.01 3.58 41.60 51.90 55.79 5.07 50.80 65.30 50.93 1.78 48.00 52.80
SiO2 11.38 0.77 10.50 12.50 11.99 0.44 11.30 12.50 10.39 0.61 9.50 11.50
2?
Fe 0.12 0.01 0.11 0.13 0.17 0.06 0.10 0.30 0.16 0.05 0.10 0.20
HCO3- 193.95 25.18 160.43 239.24 438.93 49.60 400.16 551.44 387.96 22.99 347.70 409.92
Percent sodium 34.36 4.82 30.56 41.67 39.52 1.77 37.67 42.39 40.89 1.50 38.80 43.47
SAR 1.61 0.19 1.44 1.94 2.06 0.18 1.85 2.34 2.00 0.08 1.86 2.12
RSC 0.20 0.47 -0.41 0.86 4.41 0.77 3.74 6.09 3.91 0.31 3.31 4.28
WQI 50.34 6.38 41.66 57.46 63.38 3.56 56.85 67.59 56.54 2.98 52.65 63.21

DO levels in lakes vary according to their trophic levels,
and depletion of DO in water probably is the most frequent
result of water pollution (Srivastava et al. 2009). Dissolved
oxygen is the maximum concentration of oxygen that can
dissolve in water. As a function of water temperature, it may
vary from place to place and time to time. DO is an
important parameter to assess the waste assimilative
capacity of the waters (Rao and Rao 2010). It fluctuate
seasonally, daily and with variation in water temperature
(Rao and Rao 2010; Wavde and Arjun 2010), mainly due to
consumption of DO owing to respiration by aquatic ani-
mals, decomposition of organic matter, and various chem-
ical reactions. The mean DO concentration in Sankey tank
water ranged between 7.83 ± 1.11 mg/L (March 2012),
7.70 ± 1.16 mg/L (April 2012) and 6.28 ± 0.42 mg/L
(May 2012) while in Mallathahalli lake water, it was
9.26 ± 0.53 mg/L (March 2012), 8.88 ± 0.39 mg/L (April
2012) and 7.54 ± 0.76 mg/L (May 2012). As per USPH,
the DO should be between 4 and 6 mg/L (De 2003) and if
DO levels in water drop below 5.0 mg/L, many life forms
are put under stress (Raveen and Daniel 2010). The mean
DO values in Sankey tank and Mallathahalli lake water was
above the desirable limit of 6 mg/L.
The average colour of Sankey tank water was 8.89 ±
2.20 hazens (March 2012), 10.0 ± 0.0 hazens (April 2012)
and 10.0 ± 0.0 hazens (May 2012) while in Mallathahalli
lake water, it was 13.33 ± 5.0 hazens (March 2012),
15.0 ± 7.50 hazens (April 2012) and 20.0 ± 0.0 hazens
(May 2012). The colour of Mallathahalli lake and Sankey
tank water were below the permissible limit of 25 hazens
(BIS 1998), though colour of Sankey tank was close to the
limit.

123
254 Appl Water Sci (2013) 3:247–261

Table 4 Analytical results of Mallathahalli lake water from March 2012 to May 2012
Parameters March 2012 April 2012 May 2012
Mean SD Min Max Mean SD Min Max Mean SD Min Max

DO 9.26 0.53 8.85 10.38 8.88 0.39 8.32 9.51 7.54 0.76 6.50 8.50
pH 8.65 0.34 8.12 9.10 8.78 0.73 7.50 9.51 8.94 0.53 8.10 9.60
EC 1762.56 79.20 1612.00 1870.00 1777.89 32.62 1712.00 1812.00 1853.33 66.56 1792.00 2000.00
TDS 1092.78 49.10 999.44 1159.40 1102.29 20.23 1061.44 1123.44 1149.07 41.27 1111.04 1240.00
Colour 13.33 5.00 10.00 20.00 15.00 7.50 5.00 20.00 20.00 0.00 20.00 20.00
Turbidity 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 5.00 0.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 0.00 5.00 5.00
BOD 8.32 0.85 6.51 9.38 7.58 0.70 6.25 8.50 8.84 0.48 8.30 9.40
COD 153.78 27.40 123.00 195.00 40.70 2.63 36.21 44.21 40.48 2.04 37.50 43.20
Temp 28.72 0.97 28.00 30.20 29.98 0.83 28.50 31.20 30.59 0.37 30.00 31.10
CO2 6.11 0.58 5.20 7.20 7.98 1.21 6.20 9.50 6.51 0.93 5.10 7.70
TA 655.89 211.03 400.00 920.00 736.67 48.33 648.00 801.00 556.22 53.44 480.00 605.00
TH 517.22 75.52 420.00 612.00 553.00 32.02 512.00 592.00 429.22 62.41 355.00 508.00
CaH 403.44 55.86 316.00 488.00 366.08 17.36 330.50 388.00 330.56 17.53 300.00 350.00
2?
Ca 161.38 22.34 126.40 195.20 146.43 6.95 132.20 155.20 132.22 7.01 120.00 140.00
MgH 113.78 49.50 51.00 164.50 186.92 37.90 137.50 261.50 98.67 74.03 7.00 175.00
Mg2? 27.76 12.08 12.44 40.14 45.61 9.25 33.55 63.81 24.07 18.06 1.71 42.70
Cl- 240.22 21.17 200.00 265.00 380.77 40.88 339.00 469.04 295.22 55.67 221.00 356.00
NO3- 17.72 2.99 10.01 19.81 33.09 4.92 27.39 40.21 30.39 1.73 28.40 33.50
PO43- 14.35 4.26 8.50 18.90 37.64 2.97 32.66 41.00 40.91 2.56 36.50 45.60
2-
SO4 41.60 9.52 28.80 56.31 90.24 10.01 75.39 102.00 88.90 4.33 81.40 95.40
F? 0.57 0.12 0.40 0.80 0.73 0.13 0.50 0.90 0.79 0.15 0.50 1.00
K? 22.00 1.79 12.40 30.10 40.24 0.22 38.60 43.00 37.20 0.26 31.50 41.00
Na? 178.56 37.35 120.00 231.00 159.67 27.14 123.00 191.00 138.56 28.03 100.00 172.00
SiO2 15.77 0.48 14.80 16.40 16.91 0.52 16.20 17.80 18.26 0.38 17.50 18.70
2?
Fe 0.14 0.02 0.11 0.18 0.26 0.03 0.20 0.30 0.32 0.03 0.29 0.38
HCO3- 800.18 257.46 488.00 1122.40 898.73 58.96 790.56 977.22 678.59 65.19 585.60 738.10
Percent sodium 41.38 5.06 30.95 45.70 36.31 4.24 29.69 41.18 38.53 1.76 35.49 41.01
SAR 3.42 0.63 2.23 4.13 2.96 0.50 2.22 3.50 2.89 0.39 2.31 3.38
RSC 2.78 5.68 -4.23 10.01 3.67 0.76 2.70 5.16 2.54 0.52 1.90 3.65
WQI 111.69 4.61 105.41 118.09 137.09 6.01 126.98 146.03 122.38 9.78 109.08 133.38

Table 5 Classification of
Sl. Type of water Suitability for irrigation
irrigation water based on
No
electrical conductivity
1 Low salinity water (C1) conductivity Suitable for all types of crops and all kinds of soil.
between 100 and 250 lS/cm Permissible under normal irrigation practices except
in soils of extremely low permeability
2 Medium salinity water (C2) conductivity Can be used, if a moderate amount of leaching occurs.
between 250 and 750 lS/cm Normal salt tolerant plants can be grown without
much salinity control
3 High salinity water (C3) conductivity Unsuitable for soil with restricted drainage. Only high-
between 750 and 2,250 lS/cm salt tolerant plants can be grown
4 Very high salinity (C4) conductivity more Unsuitable for irrigation
than 2,250 lS/cm

Turbidity depends on the nature of the water bodies such The mean turbidity of Sankey tank water was 0.90 ± 0.30
as river under flood conditions, lake or other water existing NTU (March 2012), 1.0 ± 0.0 NTU (April 2012) and
under relatively quiescent conditions, wherein, most of the 1.0 ± 0.0 NTU (May 2012) while in Mallathahalli lake
turbidity is due to colloidal and extremely fine dispersions. water, it was 1.0 ± 0.0 NTU (March 2012), 5.0 ± 0.0

123
Appl Water Sci (2013) 3:247–261
NTU (April 2012) and 5.0 ± 0.0 NTU (May 2012). The
turbid nature of Sankey tank and Mallathahalli lake water
was well below the permissible limit of 10 NTU.
The average temperature of Sankey tank water was
28.19 ± 0.4 °C (March 2012), 30.04 ± 0.5 °C (April 2012)
and 30.13 ± 0.39 °C (May 2012) while in Mallathahalli
lake water, it was 28.72 ± 0.97 °C (March 2012), 29.98 ±
0.83 °C (April 2012) and 30.59 ± 0.37 °C (May 2012).
BOD and COD are important parameters that indicate
contamination with organic wastes (Siraj et al. 2010).
Biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) is the amount of
oxygen required by bacteria while stabilizing decompos-
able organic matter under aerobic conditions (Sawyer and
McCarty 1978). It is required to assess the pollution of
surface and ground water where contamination occurred
due to disposal of domestic and industrial effluents.
According to WHO drinking water standard, BOD should
not exceed 6 mg/L (De 2003). BOD values in Sankey tank
water ranged from 8.05 ± 1.18 mg/L (March 2012),
5.78 ± 0.58 mg/L (April 2012) and 5.87 ± 0.57 mg/L
(May 2012) while in Mallathahalli lake water, it was
8.32 ± 0.85 mg/L (March 2012), 7.58 ± 0.70 mg/L (April
2012) and 8.84 ± 0.48 mg/L (May 2012). It is evident
from the results that BOD values of both the lakes were
well above the standard limit of 3 mg/L.
Chemical oxygen demand (COD) determines the oxy-
gen required for chemical oxidation of most organic matter
and oxidizable inorganic substances with the help of strong
chemical oxidant. In conjunction with the BOD, the COD
test is helpful in indicating toxic conditions and the pres-
ence of biologically resistant organic substances (Sawyer
and McCarty 1978). COD values in Sankey tank water was
71.44 ± 12.32 mg/L (March 2012), 37.94 ± 1.41 mg/L
(April 2012) and 21.91 ± 3.19 mg/L (May 2012). In Ma-
llathahalli lake water, it was 153.78 ± 27.40 mg/L (March
2012), 40.70 ± 2.63 mg/L (April 2012) and 40.48 ±
2.04 mg/L (May 2012). Khuhawari et al. (2009) associated
higher values of COD with increased anthropogenic pres-
sures on lakes and it is evident from the results that COD
values of both the lakes were very high, an indication of
flooded organic matter.
Alkalinity is a measure of the ability of water to neu-
tralize acids. It is due to the presence of bicarbonates, car-
bonates and hydroxide of calcium, magnesium, sodium,
potassium and salts of weak acids and strong bases as
borates, silicates, phosphates, etc. Large amount of alka-
linity imparts a bitter taste, harmful for irrigation as it
damages soil and hence reduces crop yields (Sundar and
Saseetharan 2008). In Sankey tank water, the total alkalinity
values was 158.98 ± 20.64 mg/L (March 2012), 358.78 ±
40.65 mg/L (April 2012) and 318.00 ± 18.85 mg/L (May
2012) and in Mallathahalli lake water, it was 655.89 ±
211.03 mg/L (March 2012), 736.67 ± 48.33 mg/L (April
255
2012) and 556.22 ± 53.44 mg/L (May 2012). It is evident
that alkalinity values in Sankey tank water were above the
permissible limit of 600 mg/L (BIS 1998) during April and
May 2012. In contrast, Mallathahalli lake water showed
alkalinity value higher than the desirable limit for all the
months.
Total hardness values was 148.90 ± 14.18 mg/L (March
2012), 138.93 ± 5.59 mg/L (April 2012) and 122.14 ±
5.09 mg/L (May 2012) and in Mallathahalli lake water, it
was 517.22 ± 75.52 mg/L (March 2012), 553.00 ±
3!2.02 mg/L (April 2012) and 429.22 ± 62.41 mg/L (May
2012). Total hardness values in Sankey tank and Malla-
thahalli lake water was below the permissible limit of
600 mg/L (BIS 1998). The degree of hardness of drinking
water has been classified (WHO 2004) in terms of its
equivalent CaCO3 concentration (Table 6) and accordingly,
both Sankey tank and Mallathahalli lake water respectively,
belong to hard and very hard category (Sawyer and
McCarthy 1967).
In Sankey tank, the calcium hardness values of 92.32 ±
1.37 mg/L (March 2012), 57.62 ± 6.05 mg/L (April 2012)
and 38.33 ± 5.73 mg/L (May 2012), were well below the
permissible limit of 200 mg/L (BIS 1998) except for
March 2012. In Mallathahalli lake water, it was 403.44 ±
55.86 mg/L (March 2012), 366.08 ± 17.36 mg/L (April
2012) and 330.56 ± 17.53 mg/L (May 2012), which were
very high compared to their permissible limit.
The magnesium hardness in Sankey tank water was
56.58 ± 14.33 mg/L (March 2012), 81.31 ± 9.16 mg/L
(April 2012) and 83.81 ± 3.92 mg/L (May 2012), while in
Mallathahalli lake water, it was 113.78 ± 49.50 mg/L
(March 2012), 186.92 ± 37.90 mg/L (April 2012) and
98.67 ± 74.03 mg/L (May 2012).
The dissolved CO2 in Sankey tank water was 7.29 ±
0.64 mg/L (March 2012), 7.50 ± 0.60 mg/L (April 2012)
and 5.99 ± 0.34 mg/L (May 2012), while in Mallathahalli
lake water, it was 6.11 ± 0.58 mg/L (March 2012),
7.98 ± 1.21 mg/L (April 2012) and 6.51 ± 0.93 mg/L
(May 2012). Similarly, the mean concentration of silica in
Sankey tank water was 11.38 ± 0.77 mg/L (March 2012),
11.99 ± 0.44 mg/L (April 2012) and 10.39 ± 0.61 mg/L
(May 2012), while in Mallathahalli lake water, it was
15.77 ± 0.48 mg/L (March 2012), 16.91 ± 0.52 mg/L
(April 2012) and 18.26 ± 0.38 mg/L (May 2012). It is
Table 6 Classification of water depending upon the hardness (WHO
2004)
Classification Hardness range (mg/L)
Soft 0–75
Medium hard 75–150
Hard 150–300
Very hard Above 300
123
256
evident that Mallathahalli lake water showed higher con-
centration of silica, might be due to accumulation of more
of sediment/silt in comparison with Sankey tank.
Major Ion Chemistry
In Mallathahalli lake water, the predominant cation trend
was in the order of Ca2? [ Na? [ Mg2? [ K? with cal-
cium being dominant cation and the predominant anion
trend was in the order of HCO3- [ Cl- [ SO42-, with
bicarbonate being the dominant anion (Fig. 2). Contrast to
this, in Sankey tank water, the predominant cation trend
was in the order Na? [Mg2? [ Ca2? [ K? with sodium
being dominant cation and the predominant anion trend
was HCO3- [ Cl- [ SO42-, with bicarbonate being the
dominant anion (Fig. 2). Spatial trend of water
Fig. 2 Schoeller diagrams illustrating major ionic dominance in the surface water of Mallathahalli lake and Sankey tank
Fig. 3 Radial diagram showing spatial trend in water composition (viz., major anions and cations) of Sankey tank water
123
Appl Water Sci (2013) 3:247–261
composition (viz., major anions and cations) in Sankey
tank and Mallathahalli lake are presented by Figs. 3 and 4.
Chemistry of cations
The mean concentration of calcium in Sankey tank water was
36.93 ± 0.55 mg/L (March 2012), 23.05 ± 2.42 mg/L
(April 2012) and 15.33 ± 2.29 mg/L (May 2012), while in
Mallathahalli lake water, it was 161.38 ± 22.34 mg/L
(March 2012), 146.43 ± 6.95 mg/L (April 2012) and
132.22 ± 7.01 mg/L (May 2012). It is apparent that Malla-
thahalli lake water showed higher calcium content compared
to Sankey tank water. However, calcium content in both the
lake water was below the permissible limit of 200 mg/L.
The average magnesium values in Sankey tank water was
13.80 ± 3.50 mg/L (March 2012), 19.84 ± 2.24 mg/L
Appl Water Sci (2013) 3:247–261
Fig. 4 Radial diagram showing spatial trend in water composition (viz., major anions and cations) of Mallathahalli lake water
(April 2012) and 20.45 ± 0.96 mg/L (May 2012), while in
Mallathahalli lake water, it was 27.76 ± 12.08 mg/L
(March 2012), 45.61 ± 9.25 mg/L (April 2012) and
24.07 ± 18.06 mg/L (May 2012). It is evident that Sankey
tank and Mallathahalli lake water had magnesium con-
centration within the permissible limit of 100 mg/L.
The mean sodium concentration in Sankey tank water
was 45.01 ± 3.58 mg/L (March 2012), 55.79 ± 5.07 mg/L
(April 2012) and 50.93 ± 1.78 mg/L (May 2012). The
mean sodium value in Mallathahalli lake water was
178.56 ± 37.35 mg/L (March 2012), 159.67 ± 27.14 mg/L
(April 2012) and 138.56 ± 28.03 mg/L (May 2012). It is
evident that Sankey tank and Mallathahalli lake water
showed sodium values within the permissible limit of
200 mg/L. The average potassium concentration in Sankey
tank water was 31.59 ± 1.73 mg/L (March 2012), 36.01 ±
0.31 mg/L (April 2012) and 29.58 ± 1.95 mg/L (May
2012). The mean potassium value in Mallathahalli lake
water was 22.0 ± 1.79 mg/L (March 2012), 40.24 ±
0.22 mg/L (April 2012) and 37.2 ± 0.26 mg/L (May
2012). Both Sankey tank and Mallathahalli lake water
showed very high potassium content compared to the
permissible limit of 10 mg/L (BIS 1998), favouring the fact
that both lakes were eutrophic in condition and higher
content of sodium and potassium in freshwaters is due to
domestic sewage contamination (Bhat et al. 2001).
The mean ferrous iron (Fe2?) values in Sankey tank
water was 0.12 ± 0.01 mg/L (March 2012), 0.17 ±
0.06 mg/L (April 2012) and 0.16 ± 0.05 mg/L (May
2012). The mean ferrous iron values in Mallathahalli lake
water was 0.14 ± 0.02 mg/L (March 2012), 0.26 ±
0.03 mg/L (April 2012) and 0.32 ± 0.03 mg/L (May
2012). Both Sankey tank and Mallathahalli lake water
showed mean ferrous iron concentration below the per-
missible limit of 1.0 mg/L (BIS 1998) except for Malla-
thahalli lake water during April 2012.
257
Chemistry of anions
The mean bicarbonate values in Sankey tank water was
193.95 ± 25.18 mg/L (March 2012), 438.93 ± 49.60 mg/L
(April 2012) and 387.96 ± 22.99 mg/L (May 2012). In
Mallathahalli lake water, it was 800.18 ± 257.46 mg/L
(March 2012), 898.73 ± 58.96 mg/L (April 2012) and
678.59 ± 65.19 mg/L (May 2012). The Mallathahalli lake
water showed higher bicarbonate values compared to
Sankey tank water.
The average chloride concentration in Sankey tank water
was 55.86 ± 12.53 mg/L (March 2012), 141.66 ± 9.44
mg/L (April 2012) and 112.39 ± 6.12 mg/L (May 2012). In
Mallathahalli lake water, it was 240.22 ± 21.17 mg/L
(March 2012), 380.77 ± 40.88 mg/L (April 2012) and
295.22 ± 55.67 mg/L (May 2012). The Mallathahalli lake
water showed higher chloride values compared to Sankey
tank water, but both the lake water had chloride values well
below the permissible limit of 1,000 mg/L.
The mean sulphate concentration in Sankey tank water
was 28.83 ± 3.70 mg/L (March 2012), 29.69 ± 2.84 mg/L
(April 2012) and 25.03 ± 1.95 mg/L (May 2012). In
Mallathahalli lake water, it was 41.60 ± 9.52 mg/L
(March 2012), 90.24 ± 10.01 mg/L (April 2012) and
88.90 ± 4.33 mg/L (May 2012). Both Sankey tank and
Mallathahalli lake water showed sulphate values below the
permissible limit of 400 mg/L.
Nitrate concentration in groundwater and surface water is
normally low but can reach high levels as a result of agricul-
tural runoff, refuge dump runoffs, or contamination with
human or animal wastes (Nas and Berktay 2006). The mean
nitrate concentration in Sankey tank water was 5.04 ±
0.43 mg/L (March 2012), 18.20 ± 3.44 mg/L (April 2012)
and 20.23 ± 4.46 mg/L (May 2012). In Mallathahalli lake
water, it was 17.72 ± 2.99 mg/L (March 2012), 33.09 ±
4.92 mg/L (April 2012) and 30.39 ± 1.73 mg/L (May 2012).
123
258
Table 7 Classification of
Sl. Types of water and SAR value Quality
irrigation water based on SAR
No
1 Low sodium water (S1) SAR
value: 0–10
2 Medium sodium water (S2)
SAR value: 10–18
3 High sodium water (S3) SAR
value: 18–26
4 Very high sodium water (S4)
SAR value: above 26
Both Sankey tank and Mallathahalli lake water showed nitrate
values below the permissible limit of 45 mg/L.
The mean phosphate values in Sankey tank water was
8.86 ± 0.46 mg/L (March 2012), 9.59 ± 0.97 mg/L (April
2012) and 9.48 ± 1.51 mg/L (May 2012). In Mallathahalli
lake water, it was 14.35 ± 4.26 mg/L (March 2012),
37.64 ± 2.97 mg/L (April 2012) and 40.91 ± 2.56 mg/L
(May 2012). Both Sankey tank and Mallathahalli lake water
showed high phosphate concentration compared to the per-
missible limit of 0.3 mg/L, illustrating the existence of
eutrophic condition in both the lakes. PO43- enters the lakes
through domestic wastewater, accounting for the accelerated
eutrophication (Vyas et al. 2006) and the augmented con-
centration of PO43- and NO3–N in lakes resulted in enhanced
phytoplankton productivity (Pandit and Yousuf 2002).
The mean fluoride concentration in Sankey tank water
was 0.32 ± 0.07 mg/L (March 2012), 0.42 ± 0.22 mg/L
(April 2012) and 0.47 ± 0.21 mg/L (May 2012). In Ma-
llathahalli lake water, it was 0.57 ± 0.12 mg/L (March
2012), 0.73 ± 0.13 mg/L (April 2012) and 0.79 ±
0.15 mg/L (May 2012). Both Sankey tank and Mallathah-
alli lake water showed fluoride concentration well below
the permissible limit of 1.5 mg/L.
Irrigational quality parameters
Sodium absorption ratio
If the SAR ratio of the water samples in the study area is
less than 10, it is excellent for irrigation purposes. The
SAR values for each water sample was calculated using the
following equation (Richards 1954).
Naþ
SAR ¼ qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
2þ
ffi ð5Þ
ðCa þMg2þ Þ
2 Table 8 Water quality based on RSC (after Richards 1954)
The mean SAR concentration in Sankey tank water was
1.61 ± 0.19 (March 2012), 2.06 ± 0.18 (April 2012) and
2.00 ± 0.08 (May 2012). In Mallathahalli lake water, it
was 3.42 ± 0.63 (March 2012), 2.96 ± 0.50 (April 2012)
and 2.89 ± 0.39 (May 2012). According to classification
123
Appl Water Sci (2013) 3:247–261
Suitability for irrigation
Excellent Suitable for all types of crops and all types of soils,
except for those crops, which are sensitive to sodium
Good Suitable for coarse textured or organic soil with good
permeability. Relatively unsuitable in fine textured
soils
Fair Harmful for almost all types of soil; Requires good
drainage, high leaching gypsum addition
Poor Unsuitable for irrigation
given in Table 7, both Sankey tank and Mallathahalli lake
water showed mean SAR value below 10, indicating that
lake waters are excellent (S1) for irrigation.
Residual sodium carbonate
The sodium hazard also increases, if the water contains a
high concentration of bicarbonate ion. As the soil solution
becomes more concentrated, there is a tendency for cal-
cium and magnesium to precipitate as carbonates thus,
increasing the relative proportion of sodium as a conse-
quence. RSC can be calculated using the equation below
employing data of alkalinity, calcium and magnesium.
RSC ¼ ðAlkalinity  0:0333Þ  ðCa2þ 2þ
meq þ Mgmeq Þ ð6Þ
where concentration of Ca2? and Mg2? are in meq/L and
alkalinity values in mg/L. The mean RSC concentration in
Sankey tank water was 0.20 ± 0.47 (March 2012), 4.41 ±
0.77 (April 2012) and 3.91 ± 0.31 (May 2012). In Malla-
thahalli lake water, it was 2.78 ± 5.68 (March 2012),
3.67 ± 0.76 (April 2012) and 2.54 ± 0.52 (May 2012).
Both Sankey tank and Mallathahalli lake water showed
mean RSC value above 2.50, illustrating that these waters
are unsuitable for irrigation (Table 8).
Percent sodium
It has been widely recommended that the percentage of
sodium in irrigation water should not exceed 50–60, in
order to avoid its deleterious effects on soil. When the
percent sodium exceeds 60, the water is considered to be
unsuitable for irrigation purposes. It is considered, that
water is of class I quality if the % sodium is less than 30 %,
class II quality if the % sodium is between 30 and 75, and
RSC (epm) Remark on quality
\1.25 Safe/good
1.25–2.50 Marginal/doubtful
[2.50 Unsuitable
Appl Water Sci (2013) 3:247–261 259

Table 9 Sodium percent water class (Wilcox 1995) Mallathahalli lake water, it was 41.38 ± 5.06 (March
Sodium (%) Water class
2012), 36.31 ± 4.24 (April 2012) and 38.53 ± 1.76 (May
2012). Sankey tank water belongs to good category during
\20 Excellent March and April months and to permissible category dur-
20–40 Good ing May 2012. In contrast, Mallathahalli lake water
40–60 Permissible belongs to good category during April and May and to
60–80 Doubtful permissible category during March 2012 (Table 9).
[80 Unsuitable
Water quality index
of class III quality if it is more than 75. Percent sodium can
be determined using the following formula: The computed WQI values are classified into five types
Na namely, excellent water (WQI \ 50), good water (50 [
%Na ¼  100 ð7Þ WQI \ 100), poor water (100 [ WQI \ 200), very poor
ðCa þ Mg þ K þ NaÞ
water (200 [ WQI \ 300) and water unsuitable for drinking
where the concentration of Ca2?, Mg2?, Na? and K? are (WQI [ 300). In the present study, the computed WQI values
expressed in milliequivalents per litre (epm or meq/L). Soil in Sankey tank water was 50.34 ± 6.38 (March 2012),
permeability has been found to be affected by high sodium 63.38 ± 3.56 (April 2012) and 56.54 ± 2.98 (May 2012),
ratio. Water quality reflected by sodium percentage values while in Mallathahalli lake water, it was 111.69 ± 4.61
can be categorized as shown in Table 9. (March 2012), 137.09 ± 6.01 (April 2012) and 122.38 ±
The mean percent sodium concentration in Sankey tank 9.78 (May 2012). It is evident from the results that Sankey
water was 34.36 ± 4.82 (March 2012), 39.52 ± 1.77 tank water fall under good water class while Mallathahalli
(April 2012) and 40.89 ± 1.50 (May 2012). In lake water fall under poor water category (Fig. 5).

Fig. 5 Spatio-temporal variation in WQI for Sankey tank and Mallathahalli lake waters

123
260
Conclusion
Water quality index technique used to assess the suitability
of surface water Sankey tank and Mallathahalli lake for
domestic and irrigation purposes illustrated that Sankey
tank water belongs to good water class and Mallathahalli
lake water to poor water category. The high WQI values in
Mallathahalli lake water were mainly due to the presence
of higher concentration of total dissolved solids, electrical
conductivity, total alkalinity, potassium, total hardness,
calcium and chloride in the surface water. Sankey tank and
Mallathahalli lake water, respectively, were hard and very
hard in nature. Electrical conductivity classified Sankey
tank and Mallathahalli lake water, respectively, to medium
(C2) and high (C3) salinity classes. Both the water bodies
belong to excellent (S1) class based on SAR values, indi-
cating their suitability for irrigation. Sankey tank water is
C2S1 type while Mallathahalli lake water is C3S1 type
based on correlation between SAR and electrical conduc-
tivity. On irrigating soil with this water, water gets evap-
orated leaving salts caked on the soil surface and finally
may spoil the texture of soil. Soil with poor internal
drainage facilities is another reason, mainly responsible for
accumulation of salt in the root zone. Hence, the analysis
revealed that the surface water of both the lakes needs
some degree of treatment before usage and it is essential to
protect them from the perils of contamination.
Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the
Creative Commons Attribution License which permits any use, dis-
tribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original
author(s) and the source are credited.
References
American Public Health Association (APHA) (2005) Standard
method for examination of water and wastewater, 21st edn.
APHA, AWWA, WPCF, Washington
Benjamin R, Chakrapani BK, Devashish K, Nagarathna AV,
Ramachandra TV (1996) Fish mortality in Bangalore Lakes,
India. EGJ 1(6). http://escholarship.org/uc/item/00d1m13p
Bhat SA, Rather SA, Pandit AK (2001) Impact of effluent from Sheri-
Kashmir institute of medical sciences (SKIMS), Soura on
Anchar Lake. J Res Dev 1:30–37
Bureau of Indian Standards (BIS) (1998) Drinking water specifica-
tions (revised 2003), IS:10500
Choudhary P, Routh J, Chakrapani GJ (2010) Organic geochemical
record of increased productivity in Lake Naukuchiyatal, Kumaun
Himalayas, India. Environ Earth Sci 60:837–843. doi:10.1007/
s12665-009-0221-3
De AK (2003) Environmental chemistry, 5th edn. New Age
International Publishers, New Delhi
Garg RK, Rao RJ, Uchchariya D, Shukla G, Saksena DN (2010)
Seasonal variations in water quality and major threats to Ramsagar
reservoir, India. Afr Environ Sci Technol 4(2):061–076
Gupta S, Maheto A, Roy P, Datta JK, Saha RN (2008) Geochemistry
of groundwater Burdwan district, West Bengal India. Environ
Geol 53:1271–1282. doi:10.1007/s00254-007-0725-7
123
Appl Water Sci (2013) 3:247–261
Harilal CC, Hashim A, Arun PR, Baji S (2004) Hydro geochemistry
of two rivers of Kerala with special reference to drinking water
quality. J Ecol Environ Conserv 10(2):187–192
Iscen CF, Emiroglu O, Ilhan S, Arslan N, Yilmaz V, Ahiska S (2008)
Application of multivariate statistical techniques in the assess-
ment of surface water quality in Uluabat Lake, Turkey. Environ
Monit Assess 144:269–276. doi:10.1007/s10661-007-9989-3
Khuhawari MY, Mirza MA, Leghari SM, Arain R (2009) Limnolog-
ical study of Baghsar Lake district Bhimber, Azad Kashmir. Pak
J Bot 41(4):1903–1915
Mishra PC, Patel RK (2001) Study of pollution load in the drinking
water of Rairangpur: a small tribal dominated town of North
Orissa. Indian J Environ Ecoplan 5(2):293–298
Naik S, Purohit KM (2001) Studies on water quality of river
Brahmani in Sundargarh district, Orissa. Indian J Environ
Ecoplan 5(2):397–402
Nas B, Berktay A (2006) Groundwater contamination by nitrates in
the city of Konya, (Turkey): a GIS perspective. J Environ
Manage 79:30–37
Oczkowski A, Nixon S (2008) Increasing nutrient concentrations and
the rise and fall of a coastal fishery, a review of data from the
Nile Delta, Egypt. Estuar Coast Shelf Sci 77:309–319. doi:
10.1016/j.ecss.2007.11.028
Pandit AK (2002) Topical evolution of lakes in Kashmir Himalaya.
In: Pandit AK (ed) Natural resources of western Himalaya.
Valley Book House, Srinagar J&K, pp 213–242
Pandit AK, Yousuf AR (2002) Trophic status of Kashmir Himalayan
lakes as depicted by water chemistry. J Res Dev 2:1–12
Papatheodorou G, Demopoulou G, Lambrakis N (2006) A long-term
study of temporal hydrochemical data in a shallow lake using
multivariate statistical techniques. Ecol Model 193:759–776
Prasanna MV, Chidambaram S, Gireesh TV, Ali TVJ (2010) A study on
hydrochemical characteristics of surface and sub-surface water in
and around Perumal Lake, Cuddalore district, Tamil Nadu, South
India. Environ Earth Sci. doi:10.1007/s12665-010-0664-6
Purandara BK, Varadarajan N, Jayashree K (2003) Impact of sewage
on ground water: a case study. Poll Res 22(2):189–197
Rao GS, Rao GN (2010) Study of groundwater quality in greater
Visakhapatnam city, Andhra Pradesh (India). J Environ Sci Eng
52(2):137–146
Raveen R, Daniel M (2010) Spatial changes in water quality of urban
lakes in Chennai (India)—a case study. J Environ Sci Eng
52(3):259–264
Ravikumar P, Venkatesharaju K, Prakash KL, Somashekar RK (2011)
Geochemistry of groundwater and groundwater prospects eval-
uation, Anekal Taluk, Bangalore Urban District, Karnataka,
India. Environ Monit Assess 179:93–112. doi:10.1007/
s10661-010-1721-z
Richards LA (U.S. Salinity Laboratory) (1954) Diagnosis and
improvement of saline and alkaline soils, U.S. Department of
Agriculture Hand Book
Sahu P, Sikdar PK (2008) Hydrochemical framework of the aquifer in
and around East Kolkata wetlands, West Bengal. India Environ
Geol 55:823–835
Sawyer GN, McCarthy DL (1967) Chemistry of sanitary engineers,
2nd edn. McGraw Hill, New York, p 518
Sawyer CN, McCarty PL (1978) Chemistry for environmental
engineering, 3rd edn. McGraw-Hill Book Company, New York
Shuchun Y, Bin X, Deyang K (2010) Chronology and nutrients
change in recent sediment of Taihu Lake, lower Changjiang
River Basin, East China. Chin Geogr Sci 20(3):202–208
Singh DF (1992) Studies on the water quality index of some major
rivers of Pune. Maharashtra. Proc Acad Environ Biol. 1(1):61–66
Siraj S, Yousuf AR, Bhat FA, Parveen N (2010) The ecology of
macrozoobenthos in Shallabugh wetland of Kashmir Himalaya,
India. Eco Nat Environ 2(5):84–91
Appl Water Sci (2013) 3:247–261
Srivastava N, Harit GH, Srivastava R (2009) A study of physico-
chemical characteristics of lakes around Jaipur. India J Environ
Biol 30(5):889–894
Sundar ML, Saseetharan MK (2008) Ground water quality in
Coimbatore, Tamil Nadu along Noyyal River. J Environ Sci
Eng 50(3):187–190
Tiwari TN, Mishra MA (1985) A preliminary assignment of water quality
index of major Indian rivers. Indian J Environ Proc 5:276–279
Vyas A, Mishra DD, Bajapai A, Dixit S, Verma N (2006)
Environment impact of idol immersion activity lakes of Bhopal,
India. Asian J Exp Sci 20(2):289–296
Wavde PN, Arjun B (2010) Groundwater quality assessment at
Malegaon region of Nanded in Maharashtra (India). J Environ
Sci Eng 52(1):57–60
WHO (2004) Guidelines for drinking-water quality, World Health
Organization, 3rd edn, vol 1. Recommendations. Geneva,
Switzerland, pp 515
261
Wilcox LV (1995) Classification and use of irrigation waters. US
Department of Agriculture, Washington DC
Yu FC, Fang GH, Ru XW (2010) Eutrophication, health risk
assessment and spatial analysis of water quality in Gucheng
Lake, China. Environ Earth Sci 59:1741–1748. doi:10.1007/
s12665-009-0156-8
Zan F, Huo S, Xi B, Li Q, Liao H, Zhang J (2010) Phosphorus distribution
in the sediments of a shallow eutrophic lake, Lake Chaohu, China.
Environ Earth Sci. doi:10.1007/s12665-010-0649-5
Zhang Q, Li Z, Zeng G, Li J, Fang Y, Yuan Q, Wang Y, Ye F (2009)
Assessment of surface water quality using multivariate statistical
techniques in red soil hilly region: a case study of Xiangjiang
watershed, China. Environ Monit Assess 152:123–131. doi:
10.1007/s10661-008-0301-y
123